• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

Squeeze Box Tweeks

Well, I'm not running a Touch... two classics and one duet. Scanned through the article and I think the effectiveness of any of these "mods" is highly debatable. I note the author didn't try to analyze sound difference before and after.

OH well, interesting notion anyway, thanks for posting.
 
Hi Paul,

He did explain why he couldnt. And here is a link that shows some attempt to measure differences.

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost. ... tcount=329

Anyhow what did you find highly debatable?

Honestly I am not interested in the squeeze box approach since it is too limited for my needs, though I can appreciate that it is great for alot of people, and that is why I posted. If it helps things sound better then it was worth the time.
 
Maybe it's just me, but that seems like too much work for too little gain.
 
He mainly lost me when he started talking about all this stuff affecting the quality of the *digital* sound (e.g. if you're using spdif coax/optical outs). Ok sure if your wireless network is congested, you'll have issues with enough bandwidth to get the data to the squeezebox. But once it's there, how would any of this extraneous stuff affect the contents of the digital data?

Mostly this strikes me as a lot of "audiophile" foolery where they go to great lengths to avoid some imagined flaws in the audio stream. There's no proof that it makes things better, nor that there was even an issue to begin with. You'll find that on this forum, we're for the most part not big believers in that sort of thing. We're much more rational. :laughing: At least we like to think so; "audiophile" is a bad word here.
 
Hi Paul,

You do know "digital" is more than just data right?? Spdif as far as I know also has a time component. I THINK that is what is being discussed, ie. getting the timing right.

But I can see where this is going.

Thanks for your invite to stay a while. Originally I wanted to reply that this wasnt the place for me, but I didnt, I decided to be a bit more open minded and take you up on the invite.

But it looks like open mindedness is not something that is in big supply here. So please delete my account.

Thanks.
 
Perhaps he's on to something, but I'd rather be shown that there's a good reason to go through all of that first, rather than simply doing it and assuming there will be an improvement, that's all.

Well, suit yourself, open-minded-ness goes both ways. ;) I meant my invitation seriously, and I still mean it. Stick around and see where we're coming from.
 
mzpro5 said:
Stop the spam or we'll shoot this dog.
Click to expand...

I don't see any spam here.

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot Razor.

From my perspective the tweak seems like more work than just playing the CD. But like you I don't use a squeezebox.
 
Towen7 said:
mzpro5 said:
Stop the spam or we'll shoot this dog.
Click to expand...

I don't see any spam here.

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot Razor.

From my perspective the tweak seems like more work than just playing the CD. But like you I don't use a squeezebox.
Click to expand...

It may not be spam per se and I apologize and removed my original post but the whole thing is a bit suspect.

Someone posts about a tweak for a piece of equipment they don't own and a tweak they have never tried. And then seems to take offense when it is questioned.

A bit off IMO.
 
Dawnrazor said:
Hi Paul,

He did explain why he couldnt. And here is a link that shows some attempt to measure differences.

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost. ... tcount=329

Anyhow what did you find highly debatable?

Honestly I am not interested in the squeeze box approach since it is too limited for my needs, though I can appreciate that it is great for alot of people, and that is why I posted. If it helps things sound better then it was worth the time.
Click to expand...



In what way? Maybe you have already left here but if you haven't how do you find it limiting? For me, it's the other way around compared to CD.


As for the open-minded comment, I would like to think we are. Many of us are skeptical for good reason as some of these tweaks we have tried and have not noticed any improvements to out setups. A few of us have even went so far to post up measurements proving our findings.


We are open to anything new that may improve or gives us more enjoyment from our gear, but at the same time we are a rational bunch.
 
Yeah, I guess it was too early for the "audiophiles are idiots" speech. :laughing:
 
Yes fan,

How does one do multiple outputs with a squeeze for digital crossovers?? How does one do room correction? VST support? Balanced analog outputs?? What if you want to use other software?? .Wav support? (OK that is disingenuous on my part...regardless of what the slim devices forum says the sb does .wav perfectly and preserves all the metadata if you know how to use a directory structure.) But you can see the limitations. Also the digital output wasnt good until the Touch came out so I nixed it.

For all you ones and zeros guys here is a post by an engineer who was a beta tester for the touch and a fan of that approach. He compares the spdif of the touch to the sb3 and finds that it is better on the touch and notice that bit about firmware influencing the sound:

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html? ... %3Dpcaudio

Anyhow it is a great solution for most just not for me, though the price is great, and if I liked internet radio it would be worth adding to my system or if I wanted to run it to a usb only dac. That might be a great combo.

Skepticism is great if that is all it is. But too often that word is a smoke screen for closemindedness.

Nothing wrong with rationality. I encourage it myself which is kind of why I found the reception disappointing. Rationally speaking wouldnt it have made more sense to try the mods and see. Or do kids really know they dont like broccoli without trying it?

Anyhow enjoy your forum and forgive me for trying to help.
 
No, don't apologize, it's a good discussion even if my/our level of skepticism is a bit high. It's just that when I see a huge long list of tweaks like that, without there being a demonstrable reason to do it in the first place or a demonstrable improvement afterwards, it raises my "BS meter" hackles. That's not to say that I think it's necessarily wrong, just that I haven't (yet) been convinced that it's right.

I guess my big question about the whole clock/jitter thing is, if that is indeed a problem with this (or any spdif) device, what is the result on the final audio stream? Is there a subtle degradation of the data - i.e. introduction of some random bit flips here and there - or does the stream fail completely? I guess I tend to think of digital signals as "it either works or it doesn't," not "it works mostly." In other words, an analog signal is susceptible to noise by interference etc., but how does "noise" manifest itself in a digital signal? I would think the protocols would include some sort of bit check or something to prevent corruption... but I'm not any sort of expert in these things.
 
Dawnrazor said:
Yes fan,

How does one do multiple outputs with a squeeze for digital crossovers?? How does one do room correction? VST support? Balanced analog outputs?? What if you want to use other software?? .Wav support? (OK that is disingenuous on my part...regardless of what the slim devices forum says the sb does .wav perfectly and preserves all the metadata if you know how to use a directory structure.) But you can see the limitations. Also the digital output wasnt good until the Touch came out so I nixed it.

For all you ones and zeros guys here is a post by an engineer who was a beta tester for the touch and a fan of that approach. He compares the spdif of the touch to the sb3 and finds that it is better on the touch and notice that bit about firmware influencing the sound:

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html? ... %3Dpcaudio

Anyhow it is a great solution for most just not for me, though the price is great, and if I liked internet radio it would be worth adding to my system or if I wanted to run it to a usb only dac. That might be a great combo.

Skepticism is great if that is all it is. But too often that word is a smoke screen for closemindedness.

Nothing wrong with rationality. I encourage it myself which is kind of why I found the reception disappointing. Rationally speaking wouldnt it have made more sense to try the mods and see. Or do kids really know they dont like broccoli without trying it?

Anyhow enjoy your forum and forgive me for trying to help.
Click to expand...



Wow! So much for being nice! :eek:
 
For the record I am a 1s and 0s guy. That's not to say that I think all digital equipment is equal, just that any differences are likely caused by something other than the data itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top